Victor Munteanu, lawyer for ex-Premier Vlad Filat, said the new case over money laundering in considerable amounts against his client that was sent to court is double indictment. According to the lawyer, from legal viewpoint, the first case and the second case should have been examined by one procedure as they logically derive from each other, IPN reports.
“We have to only guess why they opened two criminal cases and in a somehow inverse consecutiveness,” the lawyer stated in the talk show “Black Box” on TV8 channel.
According to him, Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights says clearly says that a person can be convicted only based on the law. “No person can be convicted based on another sentence,” stated Victor Munteanu.
He voiced hope that that the examination of the second case will be public and will meet all the conditions of a fair trial. “Not only should the public have access and be able to inform itself about the developments in this case. I also refer to the limitations witnessed in the first case, like non-acceptance of a number of applications to carry out economic, financial and banking examinations, non-translation of documents from foreign languages that were annexed and based on which the sentence was passed, and non-acceptance of the application of rotagory commission,” stated the lawyer.
Jurist of the Legal Resources Center Ion Guzun said from that the information presented in the public sphere one can deduce that Vlad Filat is accused two times for the same offense.
Anticorruption prosecutors finished the investigation into the case of money laundering in very large amounts against Vlad Filat and sent the case to court on January 16. According to the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, the former Prime Minister does not admit his guilt. Money laundering in considerable amounts carries a penalty of five to ten years’ imprisonment.
Earlier, lawyer Victor Munteanu said the criminal case over money laundering in considerable amounts against former Prime Minister Vlad Filat, which was sent to court on January 16, is eminently political and is evidently electoral in character.
